Abstract: The article proves it that A.K. Voronsky’s role in the fate of S.A. Yesenin was determined by the fact that the latter was an author of “Krasnaya Nov’” journal. It was clear to Voronsky that the popularity of the journal depended on that it carried Yesenin’s works as well as materials relating to them. Those circumstances predetermined the intensity of the communication between Voronsky and Yesenin in 1923–1925. The nature of the critic’s attitude to Yesenin is evidenced by the high assessment of Esenin’s works in a number of Voronsky’s monographic reviews about the poet. Voronsky also contributed to that the collected works of S.A. Yesenin be published. Voronsky’s participation in Yesenin’s fate deepened the conflict between the editor of “Krasnaya Nov’” and the ‘napostovtsy’, which ended in Voronsky’s defeat. The analysis of the creative relationships between Voronsky and Yesenin makes it possible to update the biographies of the poet and his leading critic of the 1920s.

Abstract: The papers featured in Issue 2/2021 of the Journal deal with major topics in the theory and practice of lexicography – both in a contemporary and historical perspective. The authors address problems of onomastic lexicography, neography, explanatory lexicography and the history of Bulgarian dictionary crafting. One of the papers sheds light on some aspects of the lexicographic practice in Poland. The issue is dedicated to one of the most eminent representatives of contemporary Bulgarian academic lexicography – Prof. DSc Maria Choroleeva – on the occasion of her forthcoming jubilee. Boris Parashkevov’s paper outlines a project for the creation of a dictionary of Bulgarian surnames. The concept of the dictionary envisages the organisation of family names in nests based on semantic equivalence (correspondence), associative reference and shared structural membership, thus making it possible to reveal the structural and semantic relations among the names under study. In addition, the dictionary entries document the derivational paradigm of the respective surnames, including short forms, diminutives and suffixal derivatives. Sia Kolkovska addresses some peculiarities in the lexicographic description of Bulgarian neologisms motivated by specific types of polysemy and synonymy. The author comments on the lexicographic description of the semantic structure of new polysemous loanwords and discusses the criteria for selecting a dominant synonym in synonym sets composed of neologisms. Diana Blagoeva and Sia Kolkovska’s paper also deals with issues in neography. The authors discuss the views on the categorial nature of neologisms of the type бизнесцентър/бизнес център (business centre) in Bulgarian and comment on the reasons for the emergence and establishment of this type of lexemes in the language, while considering the dynamics of their functioning. The paper motivates the necessity for the application of a special approach to the lexicographic description of this type of neologisms. Tsvetelina Georgieva comments on Nayden Gerov’s understanding of the so-called „равнознаменаменователни речи“ and highlights the contribution of the renowned lexicographer of the National Revival and the Post-liberation period to the representation of such names in an explanatory dictionary. The author maintains that these names should be considered not synonyms but heteroyms as they belong to different dialects. Nadezhda Kostova also takes a look at the history of Bulgarian lexicography in her discussion on the arrangement of dictionary entries in different types of dictionaries from the beginning of the 20th century. The author provides a comparative analysis of the peculiarities in the application of the alphabetical-nest arrangement in the lexicographic works under discussion. In his paper Petar Sotirov studies the application of the qualifier colloquially (potoczne) in Polish explanatory lexicography, taking as a point of departure the views on the notion of colloquialism in Polish linguistics. The author concludes that the dominant notion of colloquialism in Polish lexicography is the stylistic one and goes on to identify certain cases of inconsistencies and discrepancies in the use of the qualifier. Mihaela Kuzmova discusses the place of precedent phenomena (in par-ticular, the so-called “winged words”) in phraseology. The author proposes an analysis of several popular expressions of domestic precedent origin which have neither been described in lexicographic works, nor commented in the linguistic literature, and offers some observations on their phraseologisation and usualisation.

Abstract: Background: Having lived for several centuries in areas with a polyethnic population, Croatian Rusyns and Ukrainians have repeatedly found themselves on the path of interethnic confrontation between Serbs and Croats. The events of the Serbo-Croatian War (1991–1995) were one of the peak moments of such confrontations in the Yugoslav state. The Serbo-Croatian War is the most favorite topic of Croatian historiography of the entire period of independence. However, the question about the state of the Croatian national minorities during the war was covered only by few researchers. Local researchers actually don't raise the issue of collaborationism in the 1990s. Purpose: to assess the extent of collaboration of Rusyns and Ukrainians with self proclaimed Serbian Krajina, to find out the nature, motives and causes of this phenomenon. Results: The Serbo-Croatian War of 1991–1995 was caused by the disintegration of the SFRY, Croatia's desire to secede from the Federation, and the presence of a large Serb minority on its territory that did not share that desire. Because of military campaigns at the end of 1991, Croatian Serbs completely sepa-rated from Croatia, taking a quarter of its territory under control, and proclaimed the formation of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. It occupied the territory where a large part of the non-Serb population lived. In particular, most of the descendants of immigrants from Ukrainian lands were in a city Vukovar, villages Petrovci and Mikluševci (Eastern Slavonia). The non-Serb population of Serbian Krajina (including Rusyns and Ukrainians) found itself on the path of a “Serbisation” policy of the occupied territories. So an occu-pation regime was established for Rusyns and Ukrainians of this region. Destruction, looting, rape, beatings, damage to the Greek Catholic Churches, “ethnic cleansing”, bru-tal killings of particular families – this is the list of actions of the new government. Territorial Defense headquarters were organized in each settlement occupied by the YPA and insurgent Serbs, which included individual Rusyns and Ukrainians who sympathized with official Belgrade. Due to active collaboration with Serbs, some Rusyns from Mikluševci lived well under Serbian authority. They opened shops, hotels, businesses. Individual Rusyns from Mikluševci, at the behest of local Serbs, tortured fellow villagers and helped to deport them. According to the expelled locals, the hardest thing for them was not to ac-cept the Serbian occupation itself, but the betrayal of their compatriots. There was also a forced collaborationism. Due to the compact location of Ukraini-ans in the border areas between Serbia and Croatia, during the war a large number of Ukrainian men were mobilized to the YPA or the Croatian forces, depending on the place of residence. In 1995, Croatia regained considerable territory during its armed operations. The return of Eastern Slavonia, where most Rusyns and Ukrainians lived, was to be done gradually and under the control of the UN Transitional Administration. During the process of reintegration a complex process of return of refugees and exiles, psychological normalization of social relations, and adaptation of people to new circumstances, has continued. After the reintegration of the Danube region, Croatia has failed to establish an effective mechanism for punishing war criminals. The so-called “Mikluševci’s process” gained considerable resonance. The case was directed against those who deported 98 and killed four people from Mikluševci in the spring of 1992 (all the victims were Rusyns). The investigation was constantly delayed, and the number of defendants decreased due to the deaths of suspects or lack of evidence. At the announcement of the sentence, only three ethnic Rusyns were present (other convicted had fled to Serbia and were inaccessible to the Croatian judiciary). So it turned out that only Rusyns were actually convicted for the war crime of genocide against the Rusyns. Thus, during the Croatian-Serbian war, the policy of the so-called Serbian Krajina, aimed at implementing the “Greater Serbia” plan, left Ukrainians no choice as to whom to support. However, even under such conditions, there were cases of collaboration between the Rusyn-Ukrainian diaspora and the Serbian occupation administration. If we omit forced collaborationism (mobilization into the ranks of the Serbian armed forces), then voluntary cooperation had various reasons: the desire to regain power lost as a result of the 1991 elections; nostalgia for socialist Yugoslavia and stability; as a means of resolving domestic conflicts and settling accounts with neighbors. Voluntary collaborationism among the inhabitants of Mikluševci and Petrovtsi did not become widespread. It was much less common among Ukrainians than among Rusyns – but this can also be explained by the much larger number of the Rusyns in the region. After the reintegration of the Danube, Croatia did not prosecute anyone for collaborationism, but mostly Ruthenians were convicted for “genocide” and “crimes against humanity”. However, this rather indicates the imperfection of the Croatian judiciary. Key words: Croatia, Rusyns, Ukrainians, Serbs, collaborationism, terror, Serbo-Croatian war. Biki, Đ., 2001. Rusyns of Mikluševci in the Homeland War of 1991. Mikluševci. (In Croatian) Burda, S., 1998. From the work of the Crisis Staff of the Union 1991–1993 (2). New opinion, 106, pp.43–45. (In Croatian) Bičanić, J., 1998. News about the return of expelled citizens of Petrovci. New opinion, 104, p.20. (In Ruthenian) Crime in Mikluševtsi, 2016. Documents. Center for Combating the Past. [online] Avialable at: https://www.documenta.hr/hr/zločin-u-mikluševcima.html [Accessed 15 july 2021] (in Croatian) Furminc, J., 1990. At the co-working of coexistence. New opinion, 88, p.2. (In Croa-tian) Jolić, S., 1993. “I have to find my sons grave”. New opinion, 98/99, p.13. (In Rutheni-an) Jurista, M., 1991. We have yours on guard. New opinion, 90/91, p.10. (In Croatian) Kiš, M., 1997. UNTAES Mandate and Reintegration. New opinion, 101/102, pp.7–8. (In Ruthenian) Kostelnik, V. and Takać, G., 2008. 40 years of the Union of Ruthenians and Ukraini-ans of the Republic of Croatia. Vukovar. (In Ruthenian) Lipovlyanians on the front line, 1992. New opinion, 92/93, pp.18–19. (In Ukrainian) Liskyi, B., 2002. Anton Ivakhniuk is a great Ukrainian–Croatian patriot. In: S., Burda and B., Gralyuk, eds. Ukrainians of Croatia: materials and documents. Zagreb, pp.62–73. (In Ukrainian) Malynovs’ka, O., 2002. Ukrainian diaspora in the South Slavic lands. In: S., Burda and B., Gralyuk, eds. Ukrainians of Croatia: materials and documents. Zagreb, pp.6–20. (In Ukrainian) Marijan, D., 2000. Yugoslav People's Army in the aggression against the Republic of Croatia 1990–1992 years. Journal of Contemporary History, No. 2, pp.289–321. (In Croa-tian) Pap, N., 2015. The suffering of the Ruthenians in the 1991/92 Homeland War. Vuko-var. (In Croatian) Perić Kaselj, M., Škiljan, F. and Vukić, A., 2015. Event and ethnic situation: changes in the identity of national minority communities in the Republic of Croatia. Studia ethnologica Croatica, 27 (1), s.7–36. Avialable at: https: //dx.doi.org10.17721/2524-048X.2018.11.8-27 [Accessed 1 august 2021] (In Croatian) Radoš, I. and Šangut, Z., 2013. We defended the homeland: members of national minorities in the defense of Croatia. Zagreb: Udruga pravnika “Vukovar 1991”. (In Croa-tian) Simunovič, J., 1995. Rusyns and Ukrainians in the Republic of Croatia – immigration and the situation before 1991]. In: S. Burda, ed. Rusyns and Ukrainians in the Republic of Croatia (1991–1995). Zagreb, pp.25–29. (In Croatian) Szekely, A. B., 1996. Hungarian Minority in Croatia and Slovenia. Nationalities Pa-pers, 24 (3), pp.483–489. Takać, G., 1991. Miklushevtsi's military chronology (1). New opinion, 92/93, p.11. (In Ruthenian) Takać, G., 1992a. Miklushevtsi's military chronology (2). New opinion, 92/93, pp.20–23. (In Ruthenian) Takać, G., 1992b. Miklushevtsi's military chronology (3). New opinion, 92/93, pp.9–12. (In Ruthenian) Takać, G., 1992c. Miklushevtsi's military chronology (4). New opinion, 92/93, pp.5–9. (In Ruthenian) Takać, G., 1992d. Petrovtsi fell among the last (1). New opinion, 92/93, pp.24–27. (In Ruthenian) Takać, G., 1992e. Petrovtsi fell among the last (2). New opinion, 92/93, pp.13–18. (In Ruthenian) Takać, G., 1992f. Petrovtsi fell among the last (3). New opinion, 92/93, pp.10–13. (In Ruthenian) Tatalović, S., 1997. Minority Peoples and Minorities. Zagreb. (In Croatian) Varga, B., 2016. Tragedy of Ukrainians and Ruthenians from Vukovar. [online] Avialable at: http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijesti/tragedija-ukrajinaca-i-rusina-iz-vukovara [Accessed 10 may 2021] (in Croatian) Wertheimer-Baletić, A., 1993. One and a half centuries in the numerical development of the population of Vukovar and the Vukovar region. Social research, 4–5 / God. 2, Br. 2–3, pp.455–478. (In Croatian) Zivić, D., 2006. Demographic framework and losses during the Homeland War and postwar period. In: Z., Radelić, ed. The creation of the Croatian state and the Homeland War, pp.420–4 83. (In Croatian)